The Apple
iPhone 7 was set to operate at full power and secured below a tub of clear
liquid, specially formulated to simulate human tissue.

With the
push of a button, a robotic arm swung into action, sending a pencil-thin probe
dipping into the tub. For 18 minutes, it repeatedly measured the amount of
radiofrequency radiation the liquid was absorbing from the cellphone.

This
test, which was paid for by the Tribune and conducted according to federal
guidelines at an accredited lab, produced a surprising result: Radiofrequency
radiation exposure from the iPhone 7 — one of the most popular smartphones ever
sold — measured over the legal safety limit and more than double what Apple
reported to federal regulators from its own testing.

The
Federal Communications Commission, which is responsible for regulating phones,
states on its website that if a cellphone has been approved for sale, the
device “will never exceed” the maximum allowable exposure limit. But this
phone, in an independent lab inspection, had done exactly that.

The
Tribune tested three more brand-new iPhone 7s at full power, and these phones
also measured over the exposure limit. In all, 11 models from four companies
were tested, with varying results.

The
Tribune’s testing, though limited, represents one of the most comprehensive
independent investigations of its kind, and the results raise questions about
whether cellphones always meet safety standards set up to protect the public.

After
reviewing the lab reports from the Tribune’s tests, the FCC said it would take
the rare step of conducting its own testing over the next couple of months.

“We take
seriously any claims on non-compliance with the RF (radiofrequency) exposure
standards and will be obtaining and testing the subject phones for compliance
with FCC rules,” agency spokesman Neil Grace said.

The
Tribune set out a year ago to explore an important question: Are cellphones as
safe as manufacturers and government regulators say?

Though
it’s unclear whether radiofrequency radiation from cellphones can increase
cancer risk or lead to other harm, that question is increasingly pressing given
the widespread use of cellphones today. Many children and teenagers may face
years of exposure.

The
newspaper’s testing was not meant to rank phone models for safety – only 11
models were examined, and in most cases just one device was tested. Nor is it
possible to know whether any of the cellphones that tested above limits could
cause harm. Two of the phone manufacturers, including Apple, disputed the
Tribune’s results, saying the lab used by the newspaper had not tested the
phones the same way they do.

But the
results of the Tribune’s investigation contribute to an ongoing debate about
the possible risks posed by radiofrequency radiation from cellphones, and they
offer evidence that existing federal standards may not be adequate to protect
the public.

Industry
officials and manufacturers emphasize that before a new model can be brought to
market, a sample phone must be tested and comply with an exposure standard for
radiofrequency radiation. But manufacturers are allowed to select the testing
lab — and only a single phone needs to pass in order for millions of others to
be sold.

Companies
testing a new phone for compliance with the safety limit also are permitted to
position the phone up to 25 millimeters away from the body — nearly an inch —
depending on how the device is used. That’s because the testing standards were
adopted in the 1990s, when people frequently carried cellphones on belt clips.

In one
phase of the Tribune testing, all phones were positioned at the same distance
from the simulated body tissue that the manufacturers chose for their own tests
— from 5 to 15 millimeters, depending on the model. Apple, for instance, tests
at 5 millimeters.

But
people now often carry phones closer to the body, in their pockets, which
increases their potential exposure to radiofrequency radiation.

To assess
this kind of exposure, the Tribune asked its lab to conduct a second phase of
testing, placing the phones 2 millimeters away from the simulated body — closer
than any of the manufacturers’ own tests and far less than the maximum distance
allowed by the FCC.

The
2-millimeter distance was chosen to estimate the potential exposure for an
owner carrying the phone in a pants or shirt pocket. Under those conditions,
most of the models tested yielded results that were over the exposure limit,
sometimes far exceeding it.

At 2
millimeters, the results from a Samsung Galaxy S8 were more than five times the
standard.

The
Government Accountability Office, Congress’ research arm, recommended in 2012
that the FCC reassess the exposure limit and its testing requirements, saying
that because phones weren’t measured while against the body, authorities could
not ensure exposures were under the standard.

Seven
years later — after a lengthy period of public comment — the FCC came to its
conclusion. The agency announced this month that the existing standard
sufficiently protects the public and should remain in place.

Few other
government officials have acted in recent years to address the possible risks
of radiofrequency radiation from cellphones. But in California, the state
Public Health Department in 2017 issued rare guidance on how concerned
consumers could reduce exposure.

Among the
advice: Don’t carry cellphones in pockets.

Apple,
Samsung respond

When
informed of the Tribune’s test results and provided with the laboratory’s
100-page lab report, Apple disputed the findings, saying they were not
performed in a way that properly assesses iPhones.

The
Tribune’s tests were conducted by RF Exposure Lab, a facility in San Marcos,
Calif., that is recognized by the FCC as accredited to test for radiofrequency
radiation from electronic devices. For 15 years, the lab has done radiation
testing for wireless companies seeking government approval for new products.

Lab owner
Jay Moulton said all the Tribune’s tests were done in accordance with detailed
FCC rules and guidelines.

“We’re
not doing anything extraordinary or different here,” Moulton said. Any
qualified lab "should be able to grab a phone off the shelf and test it to
see if it meets requirements.”

Apple,
one of the world’s most iconic brands, would not say specifically what it
thought was wrong with the Tribune’s tests or reveal how the company measures
its phones for potential radiofrequency radiation exposure.

Still,
based on Apple’s feedback, the Tribune retested the iPhones in the
investigation as well as an additional iPhone 7, making a change aimed at
activating sensors that would reduce power.

Once
again, the iPhone 7s produced results over the safety limit, while an iPhone 8
that previously measured over the standard came in under.

When
informed of the new results, Apple officials declined to be interviewed and
requested the Tribune put its questions in writing. The newspaper did,
submitting three dozen, but Apple did not answer any of them.

Apple
then issued a statement, repeating that the Tribune test results for the iPhone
7s “were inaccurate due to the test setup not being in accordance with
procedures necessary to properly assess the iPhone models.”

“All
iPhone models, including iPhone 7, are fully certified by the FCC and in every
other country where iPhone is sold,” the statement said. “After careful review
and subsequent validation of all iPhone models tested in the (Tribune) report,
we confirmed we are in compliance and meet all applicable … exposure guidelines
and limits.”

Apple did
not explain what it meant by “careful review and subsequent validation.”

The three
Samsung phones tested by the Tribune — the Galaxy S8, Galaxy S9 and Galaxy J3 —
were positioned at 10 or 15 millimeters from the body, the distances chosen by
the company in accordance with FCC guidelines. In these tests, the devices
measured under the safety limit.

But when
the phones were tested at 2 millimeters from the simulated body — to represent
a device being used while in a pocket — the exposures measured well over the
standard.

Samsung,
based in South Korea and one of the world’s top smartphone makers, said in a
statement: “Samsung devices sold in the United States comply with FCC
regulations. Our devices are tested according to the same test protocols that
are used across the industry.”

FCC
officials would not comment on individual results from phones tested by the
Tribune. They said that although the Tribune testing was not as comprehensive
as what would be required for an official compliance report, they would examine
some of the phone models in the newspaper’s investigation.

Assessing
the risk

Around-the-clock
cellphone use represents one of the most dramatic cultural shifts in decades.
In 2009, an estimated 50 million smartphones were in active use in America,
according to the wireless industry association CTIA. Today, there are 285
million. Twenty-nine percent of U.S. teens sleep with their cellphones in bed
with them, according to a 2019 report by the nonprofit organization Common
Sense Media.

Some
researchers say safety efforts have not kept pace. “These days,” said Om
Gandhi, an early researcher of cellphone radiation at the University of Utah,
“exposure is from cradle to grave.”

Cellphones
use radio waves to communicate with a vast network of fixed installations
called base stations or cell towers. These radio waves are a form of
electromagnetic radiation, in the same frequency range used by TVs and
microwave ovens.

This kind
of radiation, also known as radiofrequency energy, shouldn’t be confused with
ionizing radiation, such as gamma rays and X-rays, which can strip electrons
from atoms and cause serious biological harm, including cancer.

Radiofrequency
energy from cellphones isn’t powerful enough to cause ionization, but at high
levels it can heat biological tissue and cause harm. Eyes and testes are
especially vulnerable because they do not dispel heat rapidly.

Less
understood is whether people, especially children, are at risk for other health
effects, including cancer, from exposure to low-level cellphone radiation over
many years — potentially decades.

When
cellphones hit the market in the 1980s, authorities focused on setting an
exposure limit to address only the heating risks of cellphones. Scientists
found that animals showed adverse effects when exposed to enough radiofrequency
radiation to raise their body temperature by 1 degree Celsius. Authorities used
this finding to help calculate a safety limit for humans, building in a 50-fold
safety factor.

The final
rule, adopted by the FCC in 1996, stated that cellphone users cannot
potentially absorb more than 1.6 watts per kilogram averaged over one gram of
tissue. To demonstrate compliance, phone makers were told to conduct two tests:
when the devices were held against the head and when held up to an inch from
the body.

These
testing methods didn’t address the anatomy of children and that of other
vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women, said Joel Moskowitz, a
cellphone expert at the University of California at Berkeley.

“It was
like one-size-fits-all.” Plus, he said, “I don’t think anyone anticipated the
smartphone and how it would become so integral to our lives.”

The
devices became ubiquitous and were increasingly slipped into pockets rather
than carried on belt clips. The number of scientific studies related to
cellphone radiofrequency radiation soared.

Last
fall, in one of the largest studies to date, the National Toxicology Program, a
research group within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, found
that high exposure to the kind of radiofrequency radiation used by cellphones
was associated with “clear evidence” of cancerous heart tumors in male rats.

The U.S.
Food and Drug Administration, which shares regulatory responsibilities for
cellphones with the FCC, responded to the study by assuring the public there
was no danger to humans at “exposures at or under” safety limits. But the
Tribune’s testing, disputed by manufacturers, found results from some
cellphones over the exposure standard, particularly when tested close to the
body.

Despite
the changing ways people use phones, both the FCC and FDA said the current
exposure limit protects the public. The agencies cite the 50-fold safety margin
incorporated into the standard, as does CTIA, the industry association.

Over
the limit

A
half-hour drive north of San Diego, in the city of San Marcos, is RF Exposure
Lab, a low-slung beige and white building that has the look and layout of a
dentist’s office. Down the main hallway, past several doors, is a room with
dozens of large containers labeled “Head Tissue” and “Body Tissue.”

Moulton,
the lab owner, recalled how an intern once spilled some “body tissue” on
himself and “freaked out because he thought it was real human tissue.” But it
was just a mixture of mostly water, sugar and salt that simulates the
electrical properties of the body. The liquid is used frequently at the lab,
one of the few facilities in the U.S. that is accredited to test phones and
other devices for radiofrequency radiation.

Moulton
founded the lab in 2004 after serving as engineering director for chip-making
giant Qualcomm. There, he said, he often wrestled with the radiation issue
while helping design phones for Verizon.

The Tribune
hired Moulton to conduct tests on 11 different models of cellphones, all
purchased new by the newspaper. The tests took place in a 10-foot-by-10-foot
room outfitted with copper screen windows to reduce electrical interference. In
the middle of the room was a “phantom body,” an oval-shaped tub the size of a
kitchen sink. Inside the tub was a body tissue mixture.

Moulton
carefully positioned the first phone to be tested — an Apple iPhone 8 — under
the phantom body so that it was 5 millimeters from the outside of the tub. This
separation distance was the same gap selected by Apple in its tests and was in
accordance with federal guidelines.

Using a
base station simulator outside the room, Moulton placed a call to the iPhone 8
and adjusted the settings so the device was operating in the same band,
frequency and channel that yielded the highest radiofrequency radiation reading
reported by Apple to the FCC during the regulatory approval process — data that
is available on the agency website.

The phone
was now operating at full power, creating what was essentially a worst-case
scenario in terms of radiofrequency radiation exposure. Typically, Moulton
said, consumers do not experience exposure like this. But it could happen, he
said, in limited situations, such as someone talking continuously in an area
with a weak connection.

A probe
attached to a robotic arm moved up and down, and back and forth, in the fluid,
taking 276 measurements of the radiation absorbed. After a few minutes, the
probe stopped, and the results appeared on a nearby computer screen: The
radiofrequency radiation level for the iPhone 8 measured 2.64 W/kg — more than
double the highest value Apple reported to the FCC and well over the 1.6 safety
limit.

Moulton
said he was surprised. “Maybe the phone’s power sensor isn’t working,” he said.
“It’s supposed to be on."

Almost
all smartphones, he said, have power sensors — also known as proximity sensors
— designed to detect when the device is touching or extremely close to a
person. When that occurs, the phone is supposed to reduce power, decreasing
radiofrequency radiation.

“Let’s
see how this iPhone 7 does,” he said, picking up the next phone to be tested.
He secured it 5 millimeters under the phantom body, placed a call to the phone
and activated the probe.

Minutes
later, the results were in: 2.81 W/kg, again over the limit. He tested another
iPhone 7, getting a similar result: 2.50 W/kg.

“Still
high,” Moulton said.

As more
phones were tested, some results came in low. For instance, Samsung’s Galaxy
S9, S8 and J3 phones measured under the standard.

But the
lab had tested the Samsung phones relatively far away from the simulated body,
because that’s how the manufacturer had tested the devices when seeking FCC
approval.

Two
Samsung phones were tested at 10 millimeters away and one at 15 millimeters —
still within federal guidelines but much greater than the 5-millimeter gap
chosen by Apple for its tests.

So how
would the Samsung devices and other models fare when tested at a consistent
distance, one even closer to the body?

The
‘pocket test'

To help
answer this question, the Tribune cut out pieces of dress shirts, T-shirts,
jeans, track pants and underwear and sent them to Moulton. His measurements
indicated that phones carried in pants or shirt pockets typically would be no
more than 2 millimeters from the body.

Moulton
then conducted the same radiation tests, using the same methods and equipment.
The only difference was that the phones were placed 2 millimeters from the
phantom body — closer than any of the manufacturers’ own tests and much closer
than the maximum distance allowed by the FCC.

Maybe, he
said, the phones’ proximity sensors would kick in at this closer distance, and
the radiofrequency radiation levels would drop accordingly.

But most
phones still showed high levels. The four iPhone 7s tested at 2 millimeters
produced results twice the safety standard. The iPhone 8 measured three times
over; the Moto e5 Play from Motorola measured quadruple the standard.

And the
Samsung Galaxy phones?

All three
measured at more than twice the standard, with the Galaxy S8 registering 8.22
W/kg — five times the standard and the highest exposure level seen in any of
the Tribune tests.

Only two
phones came in under the standard in the 2-millimeter “pocket test": an
iPhone 8 Plus and a BLU Vivo 5 Mini.

Moulton
said he couldn’t be certain why any of the phones in the Tribune tests scored
as they did.

Only the
manufacturers, he said, could say for sure.

A visitor
to Millennium Park in Chicago talks on a cellphone. “I don’t think anyone
anticipated the smartphone and how it would become so integral to our lives,”
said California cellphone expert Joel Moskowitz.

Seeking
an explanation

Apple and
Motorola disputed the Tribune’s testing protocol but declined to answer written
questions.

Motorola
officials did say one thing about the high exposure measurement for their Moto
e5 Play, which came in nearly three times the safety limit in a 5-millimeter
test at the Tribune lab: They speculated the test did not trigger the proximity
sensors in that phone.

Though
the Tribune’s lab had followed all FCC testing methods, the newspaper
subsequently retested the Moto e5 Play, slightly altering the previous testing
method to reflect Motorola’s input. The Tribune also retested a Moto g6 Play,
which had scored right at the safety limit in the first test, as well as an
additional model, a Moto e5.

When
tested with these modified methods, the exposure results for all three phones
were under the limit at the 5-millimeter distance.

Moulton
said the two test results for the e5 Play indicate that its sensors may not
work under certain conditions.

Motorola,
which is based in Chicago, said in a statement that “all Motorola devices meet
or exceed FCC requirements" but would not answer questions about its power
sensors.

“Our
power management techniques and expertise provide Motorola with a significant
competitive advantage in the marketplace, and are therefore highly
confidential,” the company’s statement said. “The Chicago Tribune’s third-party
lab was not privy to the proprietary techniques from Motorola necessary to
elicit accurate results.”

Rules set
by the FCC require that radiofrequency radiation testing be done “in a manner
that permits independent assessment.”

Motorola
said that after receiving the Tribune’s test results, it had the models in
question tested at its outside lab, which “found results were within the
appropriate limits.” When the Tribune asked Motorola to explain how it tests
its phones, the company declined. It also would not share its lab reports.

The
Tribune also retested several iPhones based on Apple’s feedback. A reporter
touched or grasped the phones for the duration of the tests, actions intended
to activate sensors that are designed to reduce the devices’ power.

In these
tests, the iPhone 8 measured under the limit at 5 millimeters, but all four
iPhone 7s did not.

In
response to these results, Apple issued a statement saying the lab procedures
in the Tribune testing still were improper. The company, based in Cupertino,
Calif., wouldn’t say what methods were necessary.

FCC
documents show that when Apple sought agency approval in 2016 to market the
iPhone 7, the company promised to “take appropriate action” on any complaint
“relating to the product’s compliance with requirements of the relevant
standard.”

Apple,
which said it validated the safety of its phones in response to the Tribune
testing, would not provide any additional detail about the actions it took to
evaluate the phones.

The
company also wouldn’t comment on the information it provides the public on
radiofrequency radiation. Consumers can find such information on their iPhones,
but it’s difficult.

On the
iPhone 7, for instance, a user would go to Settings > General > About
> Legal > RF Exposure. There, the term “radiofrequency radiation” is not
used but rather “RF energy,” a reference to radiofrequency exposure.

To reduce
exposure, Apple suggests using “a hands-free option, such as the built-in
speakerphone, the supplied headphones, or other similar accessories.”

For some
past models, Apple gives additional advice. Apple’s website tells users of the
iPhone 4 and 4s: “Carry iPhone at least 10mm away from your body to ensure
exposure levels remain at or below the as-tested levels.” The site says those
phones were tested at a distance of 10 millimeters.

When
Apple submitted its application to the FCC to market the iPhone 7, the company
included a similarly worded radiation statement, suggesting users carry the device
at least 5 millimeters from the body, records show.

But
iPhone 7s eventually sold to the public did not include that advice.

When the
Tribune asked Apple in its written questions why that suggestion was not
included, the company did not respond.

Sam Roe
is an investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune who writes about various
topics. He was part of the reporting team that won the 2008 Pulitzer Prize for
investigative reporting, and he was a Pulitzer finalist four other times. He
also teaches at Columbia College Chicago and coaches baseball in Oak Park.Email the author: sroe@colum.edu.

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 New Subdivision; Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology. Amend RSA 12-K by inserting after section 11 the following new subdivision:

Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology

12-K:12 Commission Established. There is established a commission to study the environmental and health effects of evolving 5G technology, which includes the use of earlier generation technologies. Fifth generation, or 5G, wireless technology is intended to greatly increase device capability and connectivity but also may pose significant risks to humans, animals, and the environment due to increased radiofrequency radiation exposure. The purpose of the study is to examine the advantages and risks associated with 5G technology, with a focus on its environmental impact and potential health effects, particularly on children, fetuses, the elderly, and those with existing health compromises.

12-K:13 Membership.

I. The members of the commission shall be as follows:

(a) Three members of the house of representatives, including one member from the house science, technology, and energy committee, and one member from the health, human services and elderly affairs committee, appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives.

(b) Two members of the senate, appointed by the president of the senate.

(c) A member of the public, appointed by the governor.

(d) The attorney general, or designee.

(e) Two members of the New Hampshire High Technology Council, appointed by the council.

(f) One member representing the Business and Industry Association, appointed by the association.

(g) One member of the New Hampshire Medical Society who specializes in environmental medicine and is familiar with electromagnetic radiation, appointed by the society.

(h) One member representing the university system of New Hampshire knowledgeable in radiofrequency radiation, appointed by the chancellor.

(i) One member of the cell phone/wireless technology industry, appointed by the president of the senate.

(j) The commissioner of the department of health and human services, or designee.

(k) One public member with expertise in the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation, appointed by the speaker of the house of representatives.

II. Legislative members of the commission shall receive mileage at the legislative rate when attending to the duties of the commission.

III. The members of the commission shall elect a chairperson from among the members. The first meeting of the commission shall be called by the first-named house member. The first meeting of the commission shall be held within 45 days of the effective date of this section. Seven members of the commission shall constitute a quorum.

12-K:14 Duties and Reporting Requirement.

I. The commission shall:

(a) Examine the health and environmental impacts from radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted from the waves in the 30-300 gigahertz (GHZ) range of the electromagnetic spectrum, which falls somewhere between microwaves and infrared waves, and which are required with the rollout of 5G technology.

(b) Assess the health and environmental impacts of 5G technology, which requires small cell towers to be placed at a distance of 250 meters from each other at telephone pole height from the ground and will operate in conjunction with the 3G and 4G technology infrastructure.

(c) Receive testimony from the scientific community including but not limited to physicists and electrical engineers, the medical community including but not limited to cellular experts and oncologists, the wireless technology industry including but not limited to cell phone businesses and businesses working on the development autonomous vehicles which will rely on 5G technology, as well as other organizations and members of the public with an interest in 5G technology.

(d) Consider the following questions and the impact on New Hampshire citizens, municipalities, and state government of:

(1) Why the insurance industry recognizes wireless radiation as a leading risk and has placed exclusions in their policies not covering damages caused by the pathological properties of electromagnetic radiation?

(2) Why do cell phone manufacturers have in the legal section within the devise saying keep the phone at least 5mm from the body?

(3) Why have 1,000s of peer-reviewed studies, including the recently published U.S. Toxicology Program 16-year $30 million study, that are showing a wide-range of statistically significant DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility, and so many other ailments, being ignored by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC)?

(4) Why are the FCC-sanctioned guidelines for public exposure to wireless radiation based only on the thermal effect on the temperature of the skin and do not account for the non-thermal, non-ionizing, biological effects of wireless radiation?

(5) Why are the FCC radiofrequency exposure limits set for the United States 100 times higher than countries like Russia, China, Italy, Switzerland, and most of Eastern Europe?

(6) Why did the World Health Organization (WHO) signify that wireless radiation is a Group B Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans category, a group that includes lead, thalidomide, and others, and why are some experts who sat on the WHO committee in 2011 now calling for it to be placed in the Group 1, which are known carcinogens, and why is such information being ignored by the FCC?

(7) Why have more than 220 of the worlds leading scientists signed an appeal to the WHO and the United Nations to protect public health from wireless radiation and nothing has been done?

(8) Why have the cumulative biological damaging effects of ever-growing numbers of pulse signals riding on the back of the electromagnetic sine waves not been explored, especially as the world embraces the Internet of Things, meaning all devices being connected by electromagnetic waves, and the exploration of the number of such pulse signals that will be created by implementation of 5G technology?

II. The commission shall prepare and publish an interim and final report of its findings and recommendations. The reports shall:

(c) Include a public policy statement on 5G wireless systems, which either declares the technology safe or outlines actions required to protect the health of its citizens and environment.

(d) Consider alternatives to 5G technology that will accelerate information flow speeds and volumes without the use of electromagnetic waves that emit high levels of radiation.

(e) Provide any recommendations for proposed legislation developed by the commission.

III. The commission shall submit the interim report required under paragraph II to the speaker of the house of representatives, the president of the senate, the house clerk, the senate clerk, the governor, and the state library on or before November 1, 2019, and shall submit the final report on or before November 1, 2020.

2 Repeal. RSA 12-K:12 - 12-K:14 and the subdivision heading preceeding RSA 12-K:12, relative to commission to study the environmental and health effects of the evolving 5G technology, are repealed.

Oregon Senate Bill 283: An act relating to exposure to radiation in schools in this state; and declaring an emergency

Directs Oregon Health Authority to review peer-reviewed, independently funded scientific studies of health effects of exposure to microwave radiation, particularly exposure that results from use of wireless network technologies in schools and to report results of review to interim committee of Legislative Assembly related to education not later than January 2, 2021.

AN ACT Relating to exposure to radiation in schools in this state; and declaring an emergency.

Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:

SECTION1. (1)(a) The Oregon Health Authority shall:

(A) Review peer-reviewed, independently funded scientific studies of the health effects of exposure to microwave radiation, particularly exposurethatresults fromthe use of wireless network technologies in schools or similar environments; and

(B) Report the results of the review to an interim committee of the Legislative Assembly related to education not later than January 2, 2021.

(b) The review described in paragraph (a) of this subsection must, at a minimum, consist of a literature review of peer-reviewed, independently funded scientific studies that examine the health effects of exposure to microwave radiation on children.

(2) The Department of Education shall develop recommendations to schools in this state for practices and alternative technologies that would reduce students’ exposuretomicrowave radiation that the review described in subsection (1) of this section identifies as harmful.

SECTION2. This 2019 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, andthis2019Acttakeseffect on itspassage.